SLC-S29/W4-“Thinking and Ideas!| Rethinking the Normal!”

<sub>When a paper becomes a passport, talent often stays outside the gate.

Source: https://unsplash.com/fr/photos/homme-portant-une-toge-academique-2RouMSg9Rnw</sub>

Hello steemians,

I am glad to be part of SLC-S29/W4 “Thinking and Ideas!| Rethinking the Normal!” by @ninapenda, because this week is not asking us to be loud or trendy or perfect, but to be honest enough to look at what we call “normal” and admit that some normal things survive not because they are wise, but because they are old, repeated, and socially protected by habit.

---

1) One practice, belief, or system people accept as normal but should be questioned

One practice that many people accept as completely normal, almost like an unquestionable law of nature, but that I strongly believe should be questioned, especially in the modern world where learning pathways have multiplied, is the widespread habit of using a university degree as an automatic gatekeeper for a huge number of jobs that are not truly dependent on academic theory, meaning that employers often treat the degree as a “moral certificate of seriousness” rather than a direct proof of competence, so someone who can actually do the work, solve the problem, learn fast, communicate well, and deliver results, can still be filtered out early simply because they do not have the right paper attached to their name.

This is not an attack on education, and it is not a romantic speech about “school is useless,” because there are professions where formal education protects lives and protects society, but it is a call to separate the jobs that truly require a regulated academic path from the jobs where real skill can be demonstrated through practical work, portfolios, apprenticeships, short trainings, community projects, internships, or even self-directed learning that is disciplined and measurable.

---

2) Why do you think people rarely challenge it?

I think people rarely challenge this “degree-first” normality because it is one of those systems that feels convenient to powerful institutions, emotionally validating to families, and psychologically comforting to society, so even when it produces unfair outcomes, it still looks clean on the surface, like a tidy rule that reduces uncertainty, because the degree is an easy symbol to read, an easy filter to apply, and an easy excuse to hide behind when someone asks why they were rejected, and in many communities where unemployment is high and competition is painful, people also cling to rigid criteria because rigid criteria feel like order, even if that order is built on exclusion rather than accuracy.

People also do not challenge it because questioning it can sound like questioning people’s sacrifices, since many parents worked hard to pay fees, many students suffered to graduate, and many graduates build identity around that achievement, so any attempt to say “a degree should not always be mandatory” can be misunderstood as disrespect, when the real argument is not about disrespecting education, but about refusing to confuse education with a single standardized credential.

And finally, people rarely challenge it because changing it requires employers to do the harder work of assessment, which means designing practical tests, evaluating portfolios, running probation programs, investing in onboarding, and measuring performance, and many organizations prefer the lazy simplicity of a checkbox over the demanding honesty of evidence-based hiring.

---

<sub>When proof of work becomes the language, hidden talent becomes visible.

Source: https://unsplash.com/photos/hands-typing-on-a-laptop-with-code-on-screen-Bn4L8oSTIjc</sub>

3) What could improve if this “normal” way changed?

If this “degree-as-default-filter” normality changed, I believe we would see improvements that are not only economic but also social and psychological, because opening recruitment gates to skills-based proof would allow capable people who were blocked by money, geography, family responsibilities, health issues, or unstable schooling to still compete fairly, which means the labor market would stop wasting talent simply because that talent took a non-traditional path, and employers would gain access to a wider pool of real problem-solvers rather than a narrower pool of people who simply survived a particular system.

We would also reduce the painful phenomenon of credential inflation, where jobs that once required a short training suddenly require a degree because everyone wants to look “professional,” which creates a situation where young people spend years chasing a paper not because it teaches them the job, but because it unlocks the interview, and when they finally enter the market they feel angry, underpaid, and confused, because the degree did not guarantee dignity, it only guaranteed access to the competition.

Another improvement is that we would normalize a culture of visible evidence, meaning a candidate could present a portfolio, a project, a solved case, a volunteer contribution, a small business experience, a community leadership achievement, or a practical test result, and instead of asking “where did you study,” society would start asking “what can you do, what have you built, what can you learn quickly, and how do you behave when responsibility becomes real.”

And if we push this logic further, it could also improve education itself, because universities would be encouraged to stay relevant, more connected to practical outcomes, more innovative in delivery, and more honest about what they actually prepare people for, instead of relying on the social myth that a degree is automatically a life guarantee.

---

4) What might be lost if it disappeared completely?

However, I also believe that if the degree system disappeared completely, not just as a gatekeeper but as a respected structured path, we could lose important things, because formal education is not only about job training, it is also about building deep frameworks of thinking, exposing people to disciplined research, teaching them how to handle complex texts, how to argue with evidence, how to respect methodological rigor, and how to grow intellectual patience, which is difficult to replicate when learning becomes fragmented and purely outcome-driven.

We might also lose a standardized form of quality control in fields where standards matter, because society needs protected pathways for professions that impact safety, health, infrastructure, and justice, and removing the credential structure in those areas could create chaos where people claim competence without accountability, which would harm the public and reduce trust.

And even in non-regulated fields, we might lose a shared cultural space where people from different backgrounds meet, debate, build networks, and develop identity, because universities can also serve as social ecosystems, and removing them completely could deepen isolation and create an even more unequal world where only the privileged can access high-quality learning environments through private channels.

So my argument is not “kill degrees,” but “stop treating degrees as the only valid language of competence,” because the healthiest system is one where degrees remain valuable for what they truly offer, while skills-based pathways become equally respected, equally visible, and equally legitimate.

---

My practical idea in one sentence

The change I want to see is a hiring culture where, for every job that is not strictly regulated by law or safety, the first question becomes “show me your proof of skill,” and only the second question becomes “what certificate do you have,” so that the market rewards demonstrated ability, learnability, and character, rather than rewarding the ability to pass through a single expensive gate.

---

I invite @josepha, @mahadisalim, and @radjasalman to participate and share your entry, because the world does not improve when we repeat what is normal, but when we courageously examine what normal is hiding.

Best Regards,
@kouba01